Wait. Their name is Toff?
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Nah I wouldn't be able to stop myself from telling her she's an idiot who's out of touch with reality.
As predicted, Laura Kuenssberg's efforts are still proving fruitful. Your thoughts, Ubik?
Georgia ToffoloWait. Their name is Toff?
The blonde is thick as two short planks but shares a very common opinion, unfortunately. It's a rather poisonous position that turns people against each other.
Corbyn's "not happy with the shoot to kill policy" is a direct quote from him, given after Kuenssberg had asked him "but if you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?". His answer, verbatim, is "er, I would- I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general, I think that is, erm, quite dangerous, and I think can often be quite counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can. There are various degrees of doing things, as we know, but the idea that you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely, you have to work to prevent these things happening, surely that's got to be the priority."
So you're basically complaining that people are now reading about Corbyn's actual answer. The Trust ruled that the way it had been cut to appear on the news was misleading, not that the interview had to be expunged from the record.
EDIT - Just checked the actual video the guy's referencing and yup, it's the direct question and answer unedited from the interview, so he's basically talking shite.
Last edited:
So not "if there was a Paris-style terror attack on Britain's streets" as the description on that story still says on the BBC website? The one that is the day's 4th most watched video?
Because, in reality, to that question Corbyn had replied: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society." Which would call into question the accuracy of the page's title which reads "Jeremy Corbyn opposes 'shoot to kill' policy"
The question was a follow on to a question about the Paris attacks, from an interview given 3 days after the Paris attacks, and the 30 seconds of video presents the unedited relevant question and answer. The Trust's ruling was about the segment presented on the 6 O'Clock News.
If I was PM I wouldn't be happy ordering police to shoot to kill on the streets of the UK. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it.
What type of person would be HAPPY ordering people to be shot? Surely it should be a taken with a heavy heart.
What type of person would be HAPPY ordering people to be shot? Surely it should be a taken with a heavy heart.
So the description of the video on that page (i.e. the text mentioned in the tweet) talking about "in the event of a terror attack in the UK" and "if there was a Paris-style terror attack on Britain's streets" when the video itself doesn't cover that question is inaccurate? Not to mention the title, given the answer to the other question.
Last edited:
Good point- at best it's a poorly worded question.
I think they should've had both questions in the vid, but that text is fine. He was asked one question on whether he'd bring security services on to the streets (you missed the part where he said "much better that's done by the police than the security services", by the way, but no biggie), and then a follow on about the shoot to kill policy, clearly linked to the preceding question. Thus, "Asked if he was prime minister whether he would be happy to order police or military to shoot-to-kill if there was a Paris-style terror attack on Britain's streets" is a fair summation.
Great to know though that you're even willing to use the aftermath of a terror attack to indulge in a bit of Kuenssberg bashing (and then bring me in to it for some reason). It's obviously only despicable when May does that kind of thing.
So other than the fact the text makes out his response was to a completely different question, that isn't in the video at all, it's fine. Yet, as you pointed out, the BBC Trust's ruling was against the News' version of that video which was edited so it looked as though he was answering that question. So video form of that inaccuracy is bad, but the text form is fine?
But that summation doesn't end there does it? It continues to say he "...told the BBC he was "not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general" and "the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing... I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive"." Which wasn't his answer to that question, was it? The fact this follows you accusing someone else of 'talking shite' is just wonderful.
Last edited:
There is a culture among quite a significant pro-Corbyn support on social media which has turned into a cult like and hateful movement.
The fake news being spread, harassment of journalists, calling polling companies fake and propaganda, claiming certain polls are rigged, antisemitism.
Scarily seeing a lot of similarities between these Corbyn fans and what Trump fans were doing last year during the election campaign.
The fake news being spread, harassment of journalists, calling polling companies fake and propaganda, claiming certain polls are rigged, antisemitism.
Scarily seeing a lot of similarities between these Corbyn fans and what Trump fans were doing last year during the election campaign.
Last edited:
Are you quite sure that this is pro Corbyn and not pro Tory? Because it sounds a lot like the Tories
The FT article I posted a link to earlier drew the same parallels. I thought ut was daft at first, but now I'm not so sure.
For the so-called good guys, they gleefully enjoy footage of people being needlessly obnoxious and agressive to Conservative campaigners, for example.
Any links? I don't check social media as it's the devil. The actual Media have been dire this election, all it's done in my mind is reassure me that they're all useless (BBC included). Independent journalists tend to be more truthful and less biased from the articles posted in this thread.
A bit of an overreaction don't you think?
The woman telling the campaigner she doesn't give a shit about the IRA was pretty funny tbf.
Yes. The question was awful.
Tbf, the author is clearly right wing. FT's coverage of the French election and the Turkish referendum was excellent.
https://www.ft.com/content/54546e9a-486d-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43
Maybe, but there is an undercurrent of hatred more generally. McDonnell has spouted enough bile over the years.
Probably a back lash from Brexit tbh. There's a generation war going on with the young and old having very different views, so unsurprising that there's conflict. What saddens me is watching politicians resort to that behavior.
Corbyn supporters are drawing parallels with Trump supporters?
I suppose the Tories & the media have only been pleasant and nothing but polite & inviting to Corbyn & his aides since he's become Labour leader.
I suppose the Tories & the media have only been pleasant and nothing but polite & inviting to Corbyn & his aides since he's become Labour leader.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but what lead you to believe that the woman was a Corbyn supporter? As far as I have seen she simply didn't like the Conservatives.
They've been spreading their nonsense and lies as well via their social media.
The "Leave EU" twitter page has to be one of the worst culprits on Twitter.
So i was thinking, 1 attack probably suits May and the conservatives as bad as that sounds. Conservatives will close borders, Corbyns too soft, that kinda stuff.
2 terrorist attacks, surely makes a few think, they must be doing something wrong, time for a change?
2 terrorist attacks, surely makes a few think, they must be doing something wrong, time for a change?
Corbyn supporters are drawing parallels with Trump supporters?
I suppose the Tories & the media have only been pleasant and nothing but polite & inviting to Corbyn & his aides since he's become Labour leader.
Identifying the media in the negative was a trope of the Trump campaign, no?
And let's not pretend that Corbyn wasn't rather cool toward them himself, a situation which deteriorated further thanks to the regularity of leaks to the press. They got off on the wrong foot and the relationship has never really recovered.
Corbyn should really hammer home the police cuts as much as possible IMO.
Yeah, nothing to do with the Tories' pledge to drop Leveson 2. It's because Corbyn didn't kiss their feet when he first became leader that they're almost all backing May.
Trump didn't win because he identified the media, and him identifying the media wasn't what galvanised his deplorables.
That was just in addition to the vitriol he was spouting, and the groups he was targeting in his campaign.
Lets not pretend that the press & media haven't intentionally and maliciously targeted Corbyn for any and every move he's made, word he's spoke, or item of clothing he's worn, while simultaneously covering for every Tory short falling, and misrepresenting the news.
Social media is really the only route Corbyn has been able to get a fair battle.
Hateful against Tory policies? Nothing more than sound logic at this stage.
Corbyn supporters are drawing parallels with Trump supporters?
I suppose the Tories & the media have only been pleasant and nothing but polite & inviting to Corbyn & his aides since he's become Labour leader.
It's only liberals who get offended remember. It's only conservatives who rely on bare facts.
No right-leaning person has ever lost their mind when talking about politics - remember that.
Nope, hateful towards other journalists and anyone who criticises Corbyn in anyway.
I forgot, it's only the lefties who emotionally unhinged.
There's plenty of this, and it's tiresome, but I think it's important to remember it comes from an increasingly small minority or Corbyn's support.
Not when it's either completely unobjective, or just utter bullshit/fake news (sites like The Canary)
Or things like this:
Which is completely unfounded (Rees-Mogg has nothing to do with Wentworth Woodhouse, it's held by the National Trust) but the meme been shared on Facebook more than 50k times, and the comments section is an angry meltdown with the likes of "feck RICH TORY SCUM" and "Can't wait for Corbyn to oust this crooked shithouse lot!!!!111"
Certainly no right-leaning person called Boris Johnson either, oh not at all.
Not when it's either completely unobjective, or just utter bullshit/fake news (sites like The Canary)
Or things like this:
Which is completely unfounded (Rees-Mogg has nothing to do with Wentworth Woodhouse, it's held by the National Trust) but the meme been shared on Facebook more than 50k times, and the comments section is an angry meltdown with the likes of "feck RICH TORY SCUM" and "Can't wait for Corbyn to oust this crooked shithouse lot!!!!111"
So you want me to get mad about the reality of the internet?
And wait a minute, you can't be seriously suggesting Brexiteers/Tories and the like aren't posting similar shite (only against Labour etc) everywhere?
I don't even know how people can stand reading Facebook comments anymore. It's the greatest example of why being an adult means feck all for your maturity.
Quite possibly- I've got that within my own family with my mother voting leave and eventually admitted it was in part down to immigration- wasn't great when my non-white immigrant was spending two hours cooking for us all.
The resentment of the old for their housing wealth and pensions is pretty simplistic- as she pointed out, she grew up in a house with an outside loo and had rationing, so not like they sailed through their whole lives living the life of riley.
Fair enough on that instance. There is a level of vitriol, even in this thread though, which is unpleasant.